Krehnbrink v. Testa (Slip Opinion), 148 Ohio St. 3d 129

The Tax Commissioner assessed Ohio individual income tax against Robert G. and Leslie R. Krehnbrink for tax years 2002–2007 based on IRS-supplied information (including an Ohio address on federal returns) and because no Ohio returns were filed.
Initial department notices and the final determination did not state the assessments were premised on an Ohio-domicile/residency presumption; they focused on whether income was earned in Ohio.
The Krehnbrinks petitioned for reassessment claiming income was earned outside Ohio but did not quantify non-Ohio income or deny Ohio residency; Robert appeared pro se at BTA hearings and Leslie did not appear.
Shortly before the second BTA hearing, the Tax Commissioner’s counsel notified Robert an Ohio-residency presumption would be applied unless rebutted and introduced public-records printouts (mortgage, vehicle, voter records) to support domicile in Ohio; Robert did not object to those exhibits at the hearing.
The BTA affirmed the assessments, finding appellants failed to rebut the presumption of the commissioner’s correctness or to show the assessments were incorrect; the Supreme Court affirmed the BTA decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether assessments were improper because income was earned outside Ohio	Krehnbrink: income earned out-of-state so not taxable (or creditable) in Ohio	Tax Commissioner: taxpayers are presumed Ohio residents (domiciled) based on address/public records; if residents all income is taxable	Held: Taxpayers failed to prove non-Ohio income or rebut residency; assessments affirmed
Whether Tax Commissioner waived reliance on residency by not stating it earlier	Krehnbrink: initial notices/final determination did not assert domicile presumption, so reliance waived	Tax Commissioner: could raise residency at BTA and did so; de novo BTA process permits adjudication	Held: Late assertion did not require exclusion; Krehnbrink had opportunity to address residency and did not deny it
Admissibility and timely disclosure of exhibits introduced at BTA	Krehnbrink: five exhibits were improperly admitted and not timely disclosed under BTA rules (raised on appeal)	Tax Commissioner: exhibits were admitted and Krehnbrink did not object at hearing	Held: Krehnbrink waived appellate review by declining to object at the hearing; no reversible error shown
Burden of proof to overturn assessment	Krehnbrink: argued evidence shows out-of-state work; sought relief	Tax Commissioner: taxpayer bears burden to show in what manner assessment is incorrect	Held: Taxpayer bears burden; evidence was insufficient to show extent of non-Ohio income, so assessment stands

Cunningham v. Testa, 40 N.E.3d 1096 (Ohio 2015) (explaining domicile and resident taxation rules)
Schill v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 24 N.E.3d 1138 (Ohio 2014) (defining domicile as permanent home with intent to return)
Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1914) (classic definition of domicile)
Maxxim Med., Inc. v. Tracy, 720 N.E.2d 911 (Ohio 1999) (taxpayer’s burden to show how and to what extent commissioner’s audit was incorrect)
Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Lindley, 450 N.E.2d 687 (Ohio 1983) (same allocation of burden to taxpayer)
Midwest Transfer Co. v. Porterfield, 235 N.E.2d 511 (Ohio 1968) (same rule on taxpayer burden)
Tetlak v. Bratenahl, 748 N.E.2d 51 (Ohio 2001) (taxpayer must show errors in municipal income-tax assessment)
The Chapel v. Testa, 950 N.E.2d 142 (Ohio 2011) (waiver and effect of agency failure to raise issue)
Key Servs. Corp. v. Zaino, 764 N.E.2d 1015 (Ohio 2002) (BTA de novo authority to raise and adjudicate issues)